Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:12:40.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENTITLEMENT AND MUTUALLY RECOGNIZED REASONABLE DISAGREEMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2013

Allan Hazlett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most people not only think that it is possible for reasonable people to disagree, but that it is possible for people to recognize that they are parties to a reasonable disagreement. The aim of this paper is to explain how such mutually recognized reasonable disagreements are possible. I appeal to an “entitlement claim” which implies a form of relativism about reasonable belief, based on the idea that whether a belief is reasonable for a person can depend on the fact that she has inherited a particular worldview from her community.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bergmann, M. 2009. ‘Rational Disagreement after Full Disclosure.’ Episteme, 6: 336–53.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brueckner, A. 2007. ‘Hinge Propositions and Epistemic Justification.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88: 285–7.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2007. ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Goods News.’ Philosophical Review, 116: 187–217.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2009a. ‘Introduction: The Epistemology of Disagreement.’ Episteme, 6: 231–2.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2009b. ‘Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy.’ Philosophy Compass, 4: 756–67.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 1984. ‘Justification and Truth.’ Philosophical Studies, 46: 279–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. 2002. ‘Basic Knowledge and the Problem of Easy Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65: 309–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. and Lehrer, K. 1983. ‘Justification, Truth, and Knowledge.’ Synthese, 55: 191–207.Google Scholar
Comesaña, J. 2002. ‘The Diagonal and the Demon.’ Philosophical Studies, 110: 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. 2007. ‘Reflection and Disagreement.’ Noûs, 41: 478–502.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2004. ‘Having Evidence.’ In Feldman, R. and Conee, E. (eds), Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology, pp. 219–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2006. ‘Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement.’ In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, pp. 126–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2007. ‘Reasonable Religious Disagreements.’ In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers without Gods, pp. 194–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2009. ‘Evidentialism, Higher-Order Evidence, and Disagreement.’ Episteme, 6: 294–312.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1987. The Theory of Epistemic Rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1979. ‘What Is Justified Belief?’ In Pappas, G. (ed.), Justification and Knowledge, pp. 1–23. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 2010. ‘Epistemic Relativism and Reasonable Disagreement.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. A. (eds), Disagreement, pp. 187–215. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gutting, G. 1982. Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism. South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Hazlett, A. 2012. ‘Higher-Order Epistemic Attitudes and Intellectual Humility.’ Episteme 9: 205–23.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. S. 2007. ‘Entitlement and Rationality.’ Synthese, 157: 25–45.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2005. ‘The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1: 167–96.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2010. ‘Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. A. (eds), Disagreement, pp. 111–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. 2005. ‘The Assessment Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1: 197–233.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2000. ‘Is ‘God Exists’ a ‘Hinge Proposition’ of Religious Belief?’ International Journal of Philosophy of Religion, 47: 129–40.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. 2004. ‘What's Wrong with Moore's Argument?’ Philosophical Issues, 14: 349–78.Google Scholar
Reid, T. 1983. Inquiry and Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Riggs, W. 2008. ‘Epistemic Risk and Relativism.’ Acta Analytica, 23: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 2001. ‘Goldman's Reliabilism and Virtue Epistemology.’ Philosophical Topics, 29: 383–400.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, P. 1996. ‘Is It Wrong Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone to Believe Anything on Insufficient Evidence?’ In Jordan, J. and Howard-Snyder, D. (eds), Faith, Freedom, and Rationality, pp. 136–53. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J. 2010. ‘Bootstrapping in General.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81: 525–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. 2005. ‘Epistemic Permissiveness.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 19: 445–59.Google Scholar
White, R. 2007. ‘Epistemic Subjectivism.’ Episteme, 4: 115–29.Google Scholar
White, R. 2009. ‘On Treating Oneself and Others as Thermometers.’ Episteme, 6: 233–50.Google Scholar
Williams, M. 1996. Unnatural Doubts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On Certainty. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 2004a. ‘Warrant for Nothing (and Foundations for Free)?’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplement, 78: 167–212.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 2004b. ‘Wittgensteinian Certainties.’ In McManus, D. (ed.), Wittgenstein and Scepticism, pp. 22–55. London: Routledge.Google Scholar